I think I was pretty clear. if the person is not looking up THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SEE YOU. not sure why you would come to the opposite conclusion. ???

if the person is not looking your probability of being hit is unchanged no matter where you are in their path. you could be waving a 5ft flat in front of their windscreen and if they are not paying attention they are still going to paste you.

See you without noticing you ?? your going to have to clarify that for me. that makes no sense ???

Further out in the lane. No we can't agree on that because that is not what I am discussing.

if your "IN" the lane you should "TAKE" the lane. no half A&& about it. if you try to scrub a lane your going to encourage lane splitting by cars. ie "close passes"

I am talking about using the wide easy shoulder "OUTSIDE" the lane such that a car does not even have to move asside to safely pass me. the car can simply ignore me as long as he does not go over the white line I am safe.

if there is no shoulder at all and you MUST enter the "lane" you should "TAKE" the lane when feasible and vacate that road as quickly as feasible as your "asking for it" staying their. because no matter how nice drivers may be eventually you GOING to encounter one not paying attention. ie ride with extreme caution. have mirrors etc.. so you can watch out for that one driver not paying attention. not saying you don't have a right to be their. but logic is logic. USE CARE.

and like I said before. 4000 pounds car. 200 pound meat bag . The meat bag loses every time :-) I am a 400 pound meat bag and I stand no greater chance.

Originally Posted by John Forester
There has never, to my knowledge, been a study specifically of this point. However, the general car-bike collision statistics (the Cross study) show that a great many more car-bike collisions are associated with cycling close to the edge of the roadway than are associated with, or reasonably caused by, taking the lane.

The measurements of overtaking clearance distance that Hagen believes demonstrate his statement "Unlikely" have nothing whatever to do with the general car-bike collision statistics to which I referred. Therefore, his claim that my statement is unlikely to be correct is supported by no evidence whatever. However, the great big problem in Hagen's discussion is why on Earth he happens to believe that these measurements of overtaking clearance distance have relevance to conclusions drawn from the general car-bike collision statistics? The two sets of data are just not comparable, yet Hagen evidently believes that they are.

Again and again, we get this nonsense. Please realize that those drivers who are most dangerous to cyclists - and all other road users - are the distracted ones. They are far more likely to hit you the farther out in the lane you're positioned. Because they never saw you while texting, or reaching for something they dropped, or because they were DUI etc.

The conclusion that distracted drivers are far more likely to hit cyclists who are "centered" in the lane than are cyclists who hug the curb is just plain nonsense, entirely unsupported by the general statistics on car-bike collisions. This has to be obvious, because about 95% of American car-bike collisions are caused by turning or crossing movements.

"This has to be obvious, because about 95% of American car-bike collisions are caused by turning or crossing movements. "

ding ding ding ding. someone gets it !!

now a few things I noticed. there might be more language barriers here.

you say taking the lane and then say the further out in the lane your positioned. that is a contradiction to me.

your either OUT or your IN. which is it? taking the lane to me is you go "INTO" the lane you sit in the MIDDLE so no one can pass you left or right. you "take" the lane.

if your riding the right tire track YOUR NOT TAKING THE LANE your inviting "sharing" of the lane. this is potentially very dangerous and you need to be vigilant if the conditions require you to do this.

I am not saying this is wrong do to or anything. I am just saying this description does not jive with the phrase "taking the lane"

I wonder if MUCH of our arguing is simply lack of communication. ie using words that we don't all "read" as meaning the same thing ??

the point about distracted drivers is simple. unless you are "NOT ANYWHERE IN FRONT OF THEM" it does not matter where you are.

I had a lady destroy my trailer (regular car trailer). I have had a history of people "bumping" my trailer. its a tiny 40x42" trailer on a geo metro. people are not used to a geo metro towing a trailer and it being so small and them not paying full attention.

before the lady hosed me I got bumped 11 times. no damage just bumped.

SO I got some LED strobes. WOW what an improvement. I could actually see people jerk the brake a little when those strobes lit up and they "THEN" noticed oh crap there is a trailer their.

I had one guy pre strobe bump me. I got out and was like come on dude what gives. he got all mad at me and said I did not hit you there is no damage. I said DUDE TRAILER.

as we are both standing next to the trailer THEN AND ONLY THEN did he at that INSTANT in time finally look down and "see" the trailer. immediately Oh crap dude I am sorry I did not see it. thats when I ordered the strobes.

they worked amazing well NO more instances AT ALL. (they were pretty bright strobes)

so why did the lady hit me? because she was not even LOOKING at me. she was staring at the accident at the light and when it turned green in the corner of her eye she saw green but did not look forward just hit the gas pedal. pretzel-ed the trailer nicely.

it was NO fun getting all my stuff 12 hours home without the trailer. thankfully I had someone else take a bunch of my stuff home to their place only 2 hours from me and I picked it up later.

if a distracted driver is on an intercept course for YOU it does not matter whether you in the lane taking the lane riding the edge of the lane zig zagging across the lane or on the sidewalk. if you are in their path they are going to paste you.

taking the lane is SPECIFICALLY for drivers who "ARE" paying attention. it makes it CLEAR to them. I am here. I am a vehicle occupying this space and they RESPECT you as such because your DOING as such.

now ride down a 40mph lane at 10mph for 5 miles and they will quickly become agitated but just taking a TURN they don't even care. they take the turn behind you you move aside once the turn is done and they pass. No muss no fuss and your BOTH much safer.

The conclusion that distracted drivers are far more likely to hit cyclists who are "centered" in the lane than are cyclists who hug the curb is just plain nonsense, entirely unsupported by the general statistics on car-bike collisions. This has to be obvious, because about 95% of American car-bike collisions are caused by turning or crossing movements.

In this post, and the one before it, you draw some very hasty conclusions on the facts that 95% of bike/car collisions happen at intersections, and that "car-bike collisions are associated with cycling close to the edge of the roadway". Your conclusions show a lack of understanding of trafficas well as statistics, and have been refuted in this thread and elsewhere in "Advocacy and Safety".

That's all I care to say about said claims. I don't care to get into these stupid discussions with mr. Forester anymore.

The conclusion that distracted drivers are far more likely to hit cyclists who are "centered" in the lane than are cyclists who hug the curb is just plain nonsense, entirely unsupported by the general statistics on car-bike collisions. This has to be obvious, because about 95% of American car-bike collisions are caused by turning or crossing movements.

"This has to be obvious, because about 95% of American car-bike collisions are caused by turning or crossing movements. "

ding ding ding ding. someone gets it !!

now a few things I noticed. there might be more language barriers here.

you say taking the lane and then say the further out in the lane your positioned. that is a contradiction to me.

your either OUT or your IN. which is it? taking the lane to me is you go "INTO" the lane you sit in the MIDDLE so no one can pass you left or right. you "take" the lane.

if your riding the right tire track YOUR NOT TAKING THE LANE your inviting "sharing" of the lane. this is potentially very dangerous and you need to be vigilant if the conditions require you to do this.

I am not saying this is wrong do to or anything. I am just saying this description does not jive with the phrase "taking the lane"

I wonder if MUCH of our arguing is simply lack of communication. ie using words that we don't all "read" as meaning the same thing ??

the point about distracted drivers is simple. unless you are "NOT ANYWHERE IN FRONT OF THEM" it does not matter where you are.

I had a lady destroy my trailer (regular car trailer). I have had a history of people "bumping" my trailer. its a tiny 40x42" trailer on a geo metro. people are not used to a geo metro towing a trailer and it being so small and them not paying full attention.

before the lady hosed me I got bumped 11 times. no damage just bumped.

SO I got some LED strobes. WOW what an improvement. I could actually see people jerk the brake a little when those strobes lit up and they "THEN" noticed oh crap there is a trailer their.

I had one guy pre strobe bump me. I got out and was like come on dude what gives. he got all mad at me and said I did not hit you there is no damage. I said DUDE TRAILER.

as we are both standing next to the trailer THEN AND ONLY THEN did he at that INSTANT in time finally look down and "see" the trailer. immediately Oh crap dude I am sorry I did not see it. thats when I ordered the strobes.

they worked amazing well NO more instances AT ALL. (they were pretty bright strobes)

so why did the lady hit me? because she was not even LOOKING at me. she was staring at the accident at the light and when it turned green in the corner of her eye she saw green but did not look forward just hit the gas pedal. pretzel-ed the trailer nicely.

it was NO fun getting all my stuff 12 hours home without the trailer. thankfully I had someone else take a bunch of my stuff home to their place only 2 hours from me and I picked it up later.

if a distracted driver is on an intercept course for YOU it does not matter whether you in the lane taking the lane riding the edge of the lane zig zagging across the lane or on the sidewalk. if you are in their path they are going to paste you.

taking the lane is SPECIFICALLY for drivers who "ARE" paying attention. it makes it CLEAR to them. I am here. I am a vehicle occupying this space and they RESPECT you as such because your DOING as such.

now ride down a 40mph lane at 10mph for 5 miles and they will quickly become agitated but just taking a TURN they don't even care. they take the turn behind you you move aside once the turn is done and they pass. No muss no fuss and your BOTH much safer.

Please take a close look at what the discussion is about (as far as that is clear). I can't see that you trailer experience is really that relevant.

Apart from that, I think we may be closer to agreement than you think. What I'm saying is first of all that "taking the lane" is what I like to call a desperate albeit in some cases necessary way of coping with a hostile environment.

its the same thing I practice on my bicycle on my motorcycle when driving my metro or minivan and when driving my 6000 pounds clubwagon or a motorhome.

EADD. Extremely Aggressive Defensive Driving.

PROACTIVE not REACTIVE. on a bicycle YOU ARE NOT FAST ENOUGH to be reactive. reactive means dead.

so I "watch" for potential trouble and aggressively work to alter my environment to prevent that potential from becoming a reality.

I have a good story that illustrates this quite well.

I was going home on the expressway in NJ had to stop in philly (normally I don't take the expressway the higher speeds are bad for fuel economy)

I was talking with my brother about my driving style (of all things)

it was night. I see the headlights of a car on an upcoming onramp merge. my EADD kicks in and I do a full status check (this is all fully automatic I don't even think about it anymore I just do it naturally)

I estimate the merging car is a potential intercept. IE we will both "meet" at the merge.

I can speed up or slow down to alter the conditions so there is no meet. speeding up increases danger reduces reflexes and it useless in a 49hp geo metro anyway so I let off the gas a little and check the rest of my situation.

as I am doing this still talking to my brother I say take this situation for example. do you see the trouble?

there is another car behind me. he is going fast enough to "overtake me" I estimate he ALSO will meet me at this intercept merge point with the onramp car (only a few seconds have passed at this time)

I say, see how we are all going to merge together at that onramp? what happens if something goes wrong and I get stuck between those two cars.

My alert condition is now higher. I now have 2 "outs" taken from me right is taken by the merger left is taken by the overtaking left lane driver.

I press the brakes hard and slow down aggressively <5 seconds to merge

brother sits up and says what the he.... (that is all he gets out) I SLAM on the brakes hard to near lock up and swerve left behind the left lane overtaker and enter the left shoulder preparing to ditch into the grass medium if needed still at max braking.

brother was saying what the he.. are you doing. I say "that's why" and point forward.

the onramp merger swerved HARD into my lane. RIGHT where I would have been had I not slowed down. he just misses the guy in the left lane and regains control.

it would have been a geo sandwich and it would not have been pretty.

so what happened? 3 deer sitting in the on ramp lane but because of the CURVE of the onramp lane the onramp drivers headlights did not ILLUMINATE the deer till he hit the very short "straight" section of the merge lane. he had 2 seconds 3 tops to evade the impact with the deer.

I have to say luck or skill the mergers driving was impressive. would not have saved me though had I not proactively reacted.

don't just react to potential danger. PROACTIVELY ALTER your situation to make the potential danger non existent or at least lower its potential.

I was ready to ditch into the medium in case the merging car HIT the passing left lane car and they wrecked and might possibly come to a halt faster than I could "stop" at which point I was already in position to take the medium to avoid them both if at all possible.

Plus I had to assume their were more cars behind me (I could not look to check any longer) so even if I could stop harder I wanted to be out of the way as much as possible to avoid a possible rear ending.

actually you seem to have missed the ENTIRE POINT of my trailer incident.

that when a driver is not paying attention it DOES NOT MATTER whether you are in the middle of the lane right of the lane have a circus of lights all over your body. they are going to paste you if you don't get out of their way.

if that lady missed a giant (relative to bikes) trailer AND 4 bright flashing red strobe lights do you think she would have seen you and your bike?

that was the "relevant" point of the story. someone said your "safer" from distracted drivers my point is there is NO safe place from distracted drivers except to not be anywhere near the road. Period.

the only way to be safer from them is to be vigilant and proactive.

I don't think I am coming closer to agreeing or disagreeing with anyone on anything. ie my stance is unchanged.

I think at the core we actually "DO" largely agree we are just using the wrong words or using the words to mean different things.

Originally Posted by hagen2456
Again and again, we get this nonsense. Please realize that those drivers who are most dangerous to cyclists - and all other road users - are the distracted ones. They are far more likely to hit you the farther out in the lane you're positioned. Because they never saw you while texting, or reaching for something they dropped, or because they were DUI etc.

Originally Posted by hagen2456

In this post, and the one before it, you draw some very hasty conclusions on the facts that 95% of bike/car collisions happen at intersections, and that "car-bike collisions are associated with cycling close to the edge of the roadway". Your conclusions show a lack of understanding of trafficas well as statistics, and have been refuted in this thread and elsewhere in "Advocacy and Safety".

That's all I care to say about said claims. I don't care to get into these stupid discussions with mr. Forester anymore.

(Edited because I had made a mess of my sentences.)

Hagen, do you dispute the figure that for American car-bike collisions about 95% occur during crossing or turning movements by one or both parties? Do you dispute the idea that for car-bike collisions that occur during crossing or turning movements the lateral position of the cyclist is almost immaterial?

You are disputing about only some part of the 5% and yet you are making claims about car-bike collisions in general.

"Again and again, we get this nonsense. Please realize that those drivers who are most dangerous to cyclists - and all other road users - are the distracted ones. They are far more likely to hit you the farther out in the lane you're positioned. Because they never saw you while texting, or reaching for something they dropped, or because they were DUI etc."

I am going to DISPROVE your logic with ONE single experiment.

ever text while driving? I did. one time. before I got 3 letters on the screen I was "IN" the opposing traffics lane. that quick.

needless to say I never tried to "text and drive" every again (this was some 15 years ago)

If there is ONE thing you can be sure of with distracted drivers its this one thing.

are you ready for this?

THEY WILL NOT BE WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

Period.

so "WHERE YOU ARE" in the lane is largely IRRELEVANT. you might even be SAFER in the center of the lane (where they belong) since its very likely that is where they will NOT be. (I am being facetious here just so you know)

I am not saying your wrong. I don't have to the data to say if your right or wrong.

Originally Posted by hagen2456
Again and again, we get this nonsense. Please realize that those drivers who are most dangerous to cyclists - and all other road users - are the distracted ones. They are far more likely to hit you the farther out in the lane you're positioned. Because they never saw you while texting, or reaching for something they dropped, or because they were DUI etc.

Hagen, do you dispute the figure that for American car-bike collisions about 95% occur during crossing or turning movements by one or both parties? Do you dispute the idea that for car-bike collisions that occur during crossing or turning movements the lateral position of the cyclist is almost immaterial?

You are disputing about only some part of the 5% and yet you are making claims about car-bike collisions in general.

You don't seem to have any remembrance of the thrashing you were subjected to in that other thread. You know, when Robert Hurst refuted each and every claim made by you. So: Just go back and read it. Maybe that will keep you silent untill you forget it again.

You don't seem to have any remembrance of the thrashing you were subjected to in that other thread. You know, when Robert Hurst refuted each and every claim made by you. So: Just go back and read it. Maybe that will keep you silent untill you forget it again.

So, Hagen, you believe in Robert Hurst's view of traffic operation over my view. I simply point out that my view is the standard traffic-engineering view while Hurst's view does not appear, to my knowledge, in the professional literature. When a system is clearly disfunctional it is an advantage for disparate views to appear to challenge the orthodoxy. Such is the case in urban planning. But traffic engineering is not such a system. It works on an empirical basis and from that empiric basis has developed a reasonable theory to be employed in future work. Hurst's view of traffic operation is not the possible challenger that might be valid. Therefore, I don't feel "thrashed" when Hurst argues against my views.

Has anyone ever heard of the vehjicular cycling technique, coined by John, called the "Road sneak?"

it involves cyclists getting out of the way of traffic coming up behind and riding between the lane lines, aka riding like a "Road sneak" instead of taking the lane.

the "road sneak" technique is apparently even depicted on the cover of a new edition of a textbook of vehicular cycling techniques/screed.

Bekologist wants to apply his nomenclature to whatever he thinks will cause me trouble. Unluckily for Bek, I have always recognized that when there are 12-foot lanes of same-direction traffic, there is room between them for a cyclist. For years, I have depicted two-step lane changes that take advantage of that effect. For that matter, I have frequently seen motorcyclists doing this in moving freeway traffic, with obviously plenty of room for them.

If Bek considers this to be disgusting, then he should provide valid arguments to support his criticism.

"Again and again, we get this nonsense. Please realize that those drivers who are most dangerous to cyclists - and all other road users - are the distracted ones. They are far more likely to hit you the farther out in the lane you're positioned. Because they never saw you while texting, or reaching for something they dropped, or because they were DUI etc."

I am going to DISPROVE your logic with ONE single experiment.

ever text while driving? I did. one time. before I got 3 letters on the screen I was "IN" the opposing traffics lane. that quick.

That's a pretty good example of the difference between anecdotal evidence and statistics. Given that a great number of drivers at any time are texting and in other ways not looking where they're going, I think it's safe to say that statistically, texters tend to stay on course. Undoubtedly, they will at times swerve, but apparently that's not the rule. If it were, the number of accidents would be skyrocketing.

So, Hagen, you believe in Robert Hurst's view of traffic operation over my view. I simply point out that my view is the standard traffic-engineering view while Hurst's view does not appear, to my knowledge, in the professional literature. When a system is clearly disfunctional it is an advantage for disparate views to appear to challenge the orthodoxy. Such is the case in urban planning. But traffic engineering is not such a system. It works on an empirical basis and from that empiric basis has developed a reasonable theory to be employed in future work. Hurst's view of traffic operation is not the possible challenger that might be valid. Therefore, I don't feel "thrashed" when Hurst argues against my views.

Yadda yadda yadda.

And he still hasn't gone back to re-view the myth-busting thread I pointed him to.

the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Posts

18,026

Mentioned

0 Post(s)

Tagged

0 Thread(s)

Originally Posted by John Forester

I have always recognized that when there are 12-foot lanes of same-direction traffic, there is room between them for a cyclist. For years, I have depicted two-step lane changes that take advantage of that effect.

Whatever that maneuver is, it sure isn't "Lane Control", John.

yes, the vehicular cycling "road sneak" maneuver of NOT controlling the lane. Isn't it characterized as letting traffic stream by you on both sides, for fear of getting in the way of faster, same direction traffic?

I'm not sure wether the advice is grounded in fear of getting crushed by faster traffic that leads a cyclist to ride like a road sneak so as to not delay faster traffic, or is it just an inferiority driven belief a cyclist shouldn't be controlling a 12 foot lane of traffic while maneuvering across multiple lanes of traffic.

The picture of that new book has a rider doing this in what looks an urban core with slow speed urban traffic. Not sure when the recommendation to not control the lane starts coming into play, but doing this in a downtown core is a sure way to lose control of a lane of traffic.

Just making sure other riders were aware of this lesser known, inferiority laden, variant in technique. (certainly not a riding style I am able to endorse.)

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-05-12 at 02:00 PM.

"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."